Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/380/2006

M.Rajaram Narayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.Thomas

22 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   28.06.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   22.12.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 380/2006

THUSDAY THIS  22^nd  DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

M. Rajaram Narayanan,

NO.4/73, MMDA,

Maduravoyal,

Chennai 600 095.                                .. Complainant.

                        ..Vs..

1. M/s. HDFC Bank,

Post Box No.399,

Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

2. M/s. Sakthi,

Collection Incharge,

HDFC Bank,

Ceebros Complex, IInd Floor,

110, Nelson Manickam Road,

Chennai.

 

3. Mr. Kalayan,

Manager- Collections,

Collection Manager,

HDFC Bank,

Ceebros Complex, IInd Floor,

110 Nelson Manickam Road,

Chennai.                                            ..      opposite parties.

Counsel for the Complainant             :  M/s. S.Thomas & S.Chandran

Counsel for the opposite party-1        : M/s. Deepa Hari Govind

Counsel for the opposite parties 2& 3 :  Exparte. 

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties   under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and also to pay cost of the complaint. 

 

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party used to offer credit cards and used to promise several benefits for credit cards facility with them and promised  best service to its credit card holders than other Nationalized banks and private bank.   Therefore the complainant availed credit card No.4346 7710 0148 4790.  Though the payments were issued regularly the complainant has not been adequately provided by the statement of accounts and proper receipts.   So the complainant is unable to get the correct information regarding his balance and interest charged in the card for his facility.  So the complainant decided to close his card and asked for balance in his account.  But the opposite parties 2 & 3 used to threaten over phone and through some collection agents without proper identify and accounts demanded Rs.64,000/- immediately for settlement of credit card account.  

2.     Therefore, the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party to close his credit card reasoning improper service.  But despite of several demands made by the complainant  the opposite parties not did so.    Accordingly the complainant received one unsigned letter dated 30.3.2006 stating that he has to pay Rs.60,099.43 starting with the words “we regret to note that there has been no response to our previous reminders, and threatening the complainant to defame his name by publishing his name in the list of defaulters  and share the conduct of his credit card account with other banks / financial institutions, credit information companies and statutory bodies in accordance with the Credit Information Companies (Regulations) Act 2005.  But this letter also not stated anything about the statement of account.  

3.     But the opposite parties sent a letter on 30.3.2006 stating that the outstanding is Rs.60,099.43.  But when the complainant approached the bank directly along with his friend Mr.P.Ravi the opposite parties 2 & 3 demanded Rs.64,000/- that too without any statement of accounts threatening with dare consequences is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

4. Written Version of  1^st opposite party is in briefly as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party herein after called the “Bank” denies all allegations that are contents of the complaint filed herein except such facts that are specifically admitted herein.  The complainant even according to his letter dated 24.1.2006 relied by him in the typed set of papers  has admitted that he has been using the credit card since April 2003, but until the said letter from the complainant, there had been no complaint whatsoever by him regarding the levy of charges on the usage of credit card.   Further the bank under its reply dated 31.1.2006, had clearly explained the circumstances leading to levy of finance charges and other applicable charges to the card account and the letter states as follows:

       .. “ finance charges on part payments are calculated on the total closing balance (including purchases and any related debited charge) from the next day of your previous statement date to the date before your part payment or next statement date whichever is earlier.   Finance charges also accrue on the remaining amount till the next statement date from your date of part payment and on the current transactions debited in your statement from the date of debit to your current statement date @ 2.95 per month”

        ..”We observe from our records that we have been receipt of either part payment or no payment for the outstanding as per your card statement.  In view of the same finance charges and late payment fee has been levied to your card account and we regret our inability to reverse the same”…

Under the terms and conditions of the card usage if the cardholder has any reservations about the levy of charge or about any discrepancy in the statement of account, the same has to be brought to the knowledge of the bank within  30 days from the date of receipt of the statement.   In this case, it is not the case of the complainant that he had reverted to any of the statement sent by the bank every month and further it has been only the bank which had been following up with the complainant for payment and the two telegrams dated 18.2.2006 and 24.2.2006 from the bank bears the testimony for the same. 

5.             It is to be noticed that the complainant is due  a sum of Rs.63,408/- as of April 2006 and that in order to defeat the rights of the bank, the present complaint has been lodged making false and bad allegations.   Further the relief sought by the complaint is against the principles of Sec.41 of the Specific Relief Act and u/s. 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, the relief sought by the complainant is not sustainable as it is curtailing the remedies available to the bank to recover the debts due to them.    The compensation claimed by the complainant is beyond reasonable imagination and concocted which is without any cogent evidence or material for it to be considered and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.        Opposite parties 2 and 3 are called absent set exparte.

7.       In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party-1 filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4  marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

 

8.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

9. Point No.1

          As per the case of the complainant is that he is having credit card facility bearing the credit card No.4346 7710 0148 4790.  While the complainant made the payments regularly, the statement of accounts and receipts did not adequately provided to him by the opposite parties and thereby the complainant was unable to get the correct information regarding his balance and interest charged in the card for his facility and in spite of repeated reminders the opposite parties did not respond.   Therefore the complainant suffered mental agony and loss due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

10.    On the other hand the opposite parties contended that the allegation made by the complainant are all false and in fact the complainant has paid even a single payment for his credit card facility and as per terms and conditions the complainant being a card holder has any reservations about the levy of charge or about any discrepancy in the statement of account,  the same has to be brought to the knowledge of the bank within 30 days from the date of receipt of the statement.   Further the opposite parties have sent statement periodically as per the terms and conditions every month and as on April 2006 the due a sum of Rs.63,408/- and in order to defeat the rights of the bank, the complaint made such false allegation and in fact the relief sought by the complainant is not maintainable.   Moreover there is no evidence or record to establish any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by the complainant. 

11.    At this juncture on careful perusal of the rival submission put forth on either side it crystal clear that there is no dispute about the availing of the credit facility of the complainant with the opposite parties, the credit card bearing No.4346 7710 0148 4790.  It is further learnt that the complainant wrote a letter Ex.A1 for certain queries  and for which the opposite parties have sent the reply Ex.A3 and Ex.B2 which are one of the same.   At this point of time, on perusal of Ex.B2 it is seen that the opposite parties clearly mentioned that “we regret inability to reverse  the false statement.   Furthermore it is seen from Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 it is crystal clear that no payment received from the complainant despite of several reminders with intimation to avoid cancellation of the credit card account of the complainant.    Further, it is learnt from evidence of the  opposite parties that Ex.B1 series, the statement of accounts for the year 2003-2006 clearly reveals the fact that the statement of accounts have been properly sent to the complainant and therefore the allegation made by the complainant that the statement of accounts had not been provided periodically has loss its merits.

12.    At the outset it is learnt,  that when the complainant wrote a letter Ex.A1, the opposite party has properly replied for the queries.  Therefore, the opposite parties have fulfilled their duty as per the terms and conditions of the credit card rules.  Furthermore it is crystal clear, that the complainant has not adduced any evidence on record to establish any loss of injury alleged to have been suffered by the complainant which is settled principle.   Therefore, the actual loss of injury caused to the complainant by the opposite parties due to deficiency of service has not been proved with concrete materials.   Hence it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the same has not been proved by the complainant.  Thus, the point No.1 is answered accordingly.  

13.    POINT NO.:- 2

As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

         In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  22^nd   day  of  December 2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  24.1.2006 - Copy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 24.1.2006  - Copy of Acknowledgment letter.

Ex.A3- 31.1.2006  - Copy of Reply letter.

Ex.A4- 18.2.2006  - Copy of Telegram from the bank.

Ex.A5- 24.2.2006  - Copy of Telegram from the bank.

Ex.A6- 16.3.2006  - Copy of legal notice through advocate.

Ex.A7-         -       - Copy of receipt of ack.

Ex.A8- 30.3.2006  - Copy of letter from the bank to the complainant.

Opposite parties’ side document: -

Ex.B1-         -       - Copy of statement of account for the year 2003-2006

Ex.B2- 31.1.2006  - Copy of letter by the opposite party-1.

Ex.B3- 18.2.2006  - Copy of Telegram by the opposite party-1.

Ex.B4- 24.2.2006  - Copy of Telegram by the opposite party-1.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.